Trump Eyes Government Control of Quantum Computing Firms (arstechnica.com) 109
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Donald Trump is eyeing taking equity stakes in quantum computing firms in exchange for federal funding, The Wall Street Journal reported. At least five companies are weighing whether allowing the government to become a shareholder would be worth it to snag funding that the Trump administration has "earmarked for promising technology companies," sources familiar with the potential deals told the WSJ.
IonQ, Rigetti Computing, and D-Wave Quantum are currently in talks with the government over potential funding agreements, with minimum awards of $10 million each, some sources said. Quantum Computing Inc. and Atom Computing are reportedly "considering similar arrangements," as are other companies in the sector, which is viewed as critical for scientific advancements and next-generation technologies. No deals have been completed yet, sources said, and terms could change as quantum-computing firms weigh the potential risks of government influence over their operations. [...]
The administration will lean on Deputy Commerce Secretary Paul Dabbar to extend Trump's industry meddling into the quantum computing world, the WSJ reported. A former Energy Department official, Dabbar co-founded Bohr Quantum Technology, which specializes in quantum networking systems that the DOE expects will help "create new opportunities for scientific discovery." While the firm he previously headed won't be eligible for funding, Dabbar will be leading industry discussions, the WSJ reported, likely hyping Trump's deals as a necessary boon to ensure US firms dominate in quantum computing. A Commerce Department official denied the claims, saying: "The Commerce Department is not currently negotiating equity stakes with quantum computing companies."
In August, the Trump administration took a 10% stake in Intel to help fund factories that Intel is currently building in Ohio.
IonQ, Rigetti Computing, and D-Wave Quantum are currently in talks with the government over potential funding agreements, with minimum awards of $10 million each, some sources said. Quantum Computing Inc. and Atom Computing are reportedly "considering similar arrangements," as are other companies in the sector, which is viewed as critical for scientific advancements and next-generation technologies. No deals have been completed yet, sources said, and terms could change as quantum-computing firms weigh the potential risks of government influence over their operations. [...]
The administration will lean on Deputy Commerce Secretary Paul Dabbar to extend Trump's industry meddling into the quantum computing world, the WSJ reported. A former Energy Department official, Dabbar co-founded Bohr Quantum Technology, which specializes in quantum networking systems that the DOE expects will help "create new opportunities for scientific discovery." While the firm he previously headed won't be eligible for funding, Dabbar will be leading industry discussions, the WSJ reported, likely hyping Trump's deals as a necessary boon to ensure US firms dominate in quantum computing. A Commerce Department official denied the claims, saying: "The Commerce Department is not currently negotiating equity stakes with quantum computing companies."
In August, the Trump administration took a 10% stake in Intel to help fund factories that Intel is currently building in Ohio.
Donald Trump has absolutely no idea what... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
He's nothing if not innovative in his grift. Do you think Todd Blanche or Wossname Woodward will get a cut of the $230 million?
I'm joking, obviously.
Of course they won't.
Re: Donald Trump has absolutely no idea what... (Score:2)
Demanding equity instead of giving out subsidies is one of the more sensible things he's done, actually. Probably because he imagines himself as king forever. Otherwise he'd just done as politicians before him, buy shares privately before pumping government money into it (though I wouldn't be at all surprised if he does that too, certainly his doge goons do).
Wouldn't it be ironic, Trump being the one bringing the means of production under state control.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whenever you see the words Donald Trump (Score:1, Insightful)
Trump is and always has been his entire life an empty suit. The few times he's been off the leash to do something himself he's bankrupted whatever it was.
This is a couple of theocratic billionaires and a bunch of religious psychopaths running America now.
The really weird one is Peter thiel who is openly gay an
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Not that Peter thiel being killed during political violence is going to help you and me any..."
It probably would, if for no other reason than morale.
Re: (Score:2)
He's a member of the ruling class. Once we get to the point where the ruling class is killing each other then you're at the point Russia's at where you have a very tiny number of people living okay a very very very tiny number of people living like gods and then 99% of the population or more is living in horrifying poverty.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't care as long as that very very very very tiny number of people have the correct letter next to their names. That's how we know we're winning! -- John Q. Public
Re: (Score:1)
I no longer feel bad for Thiel being outed while he was in Saudi Arabia on business.
Re: (Score:2)
I no longer feel bad for Thiel being outed while he was in Saudi Arabia on business.
it wasn't a secret & even if it were so what? the Saudis were not going to lay a finger on Thiel
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What Trump is doing is evil, but China- that's a forwarding thinking economic machine, right there.
It seems increasingly true that the anti-Trump crowd's position is litreally -1(Trump);
It's a bit scary. Scarier than Trump? No- but it doesn't seem like a path away from him, either.
Re: Whenever you see the words Donald Trump (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are.
Your sig, "let's not forget who the enemies of free speech are."
Right now, from my perspective- it's nearly everyone.
Everyone is a cynical champion of this thing whenever they're on the wrong side of the control of it, which they actually support.
I don't think that's a uniquely American thing right now. At least it sure doesn't look like it from my eyes.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Naw. More likely pitched to the YOB as the opportunity to kill all the YOB imposters in the other universes. How dare they gather any of HIS money?
Re: (Score:2)
And it's all linked together in a "series of tubes".
Re: Donald Trump has absolutely no idea what... (Score:2)
Russia Again?
Voting or non-voting shares?
Three cheers for fascism!?
Maybe stable genius can tell those arrogant science nerds how to make the greatest, most beautiful quixels or quberts... or whatever you nerds call them. Make it work by Friday, or you're fired.
Re: (Score:2)
He's the guy who routinely called his opponents "Fascists Communists Marxists who are beyond socialist". I'm sure he was both unaware of the irony and of the "horseshoe" view of how those apparent opposites could make such a statement sort of true, just wanting to name call to rile up his base.
But, amazingly enough, now he's trying to bring it to life for real!
Re: (Score:2)
Face it. There is nothing that is shocking anymore. No statement goes too far. Irony is dead.
For his epitaph: Here lies the man who killed irony.
Re: (Score:2)
He does know what Fascism is and the government owning part of a business sounds exactly like the definition of Fascism to me. But who am I? I don't have any money, so nobody cares what I see.
What's to stop everyone (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they? The new shareholder structure might annoy some C-level because it's one more person to report to, and because of the loss freedom in some business decisions; but C* can live with that and their fat salaries. Everybody else, janitors to quantum geniuses, are not directly affected.
Re:What's to stop everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
The irony is that Trump supporters will demonize "communists and socialists" and then utterly fail to realize how anti-capitalist this is. The last thing capitalism wants is a government picking winners and losers, that's inherent with any Trump grift, though.
Isn't government ownership of corporations socialism?
Re: (Score:2)
Government ownership of corporations for the good of the elite is fascism or communism, depending on the details.
Government ownership of corporations for the good of the people is socialism.
Capitalism is doomed (Score:2)
The plan seems to be to return to an economic system like we had before merchants existed. Not barter. But where the king owns everything and everything belongs to The King.
The difference is these new Kings will have robots and automation so they won't even need the peasants.
I don't think anyone ever imagined that it would be the billionaire class that destroyed capitalism but here
And so basically they want to turn America into (Score:1)
Saudi Arabia. A handful of kings and queens, a very tiny number of people serving them and a vast vast sea of extraordinarily poor people kept down by a combination of brutal violence and religion. All of it maintained in perpetuality by technology that didn't exist the last time we threw off the yoke of slavery.
Here is what techno-feudalism is. You have a very small group of what are effectively kings and queens that own everything and they don't care that they're aren't markets for them to sell products t
Re: What's to stop everyone (Score:2)
Capitalism is fine with government picking winners and losers, as long as capital picks the government.
Taking and equity stake is a bit more than picking winners and losers though. That's getting dangerously close to "seizing the means of production". Right now they're getting compensated, sure, but what do you think Trump is going to do when HIS quantum company underdelivers?
Re: (Score:2)
Government colluding with profit oriented firms is one of the defining characteristics of fascism.
From the article on the topic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]:
Fascism had a complex relationship with capitalism, both supporting and opposing different aspects of it at different times and in different countries. In general, fascists held an instrumental view of capitalism, regarding it as a tool that may be useful or not, depending on circumstances.[311][312] Fascist governments typically established close
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't government ownership of corporations socialism?
Not quite, this more accurately describes it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Mass deportation?
Mussolini said it best... (Score:5, Informative)
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.”
-- Benito Mussolini
Karl Marx would be proud (Score:1, Insightful)
This is straight up socialism.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: Karl Marx would be proud (Score:2, Troll)
There's a lot more going on here than you realize. Most of the time that research doesn't yield anything useful, and just finding out whether it does is very time consuming and expensive. You only ever see what works, you never see what doesn't. And everything that doesn't is just a sunk cost, occasionally in the billions.
The United States is subsidizing the crap out of pharmaceutical research for the rest of the world, and has been for decades. Few people realize that.
Re: Karl Marx would be proud (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Karl Marx would be proud (Score:2, Informative)
No, it's more akin to fascism. Socialism is outright seizing the means of production. Fascism is more putting heavy handed control over it. A market economy, but not a free market economy. Tariffs go right along with that.
Most people who call themselves socialist or say they want socialism are really asking for fascism. Bernie Sanders kind of floats from one to the other depending on the day. Same with rsilvergun. They, like Trump, don't know the difference. Ironically, actual socialists do know the differe
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Under communism, the state operates companies for the benefit of the workers, the citizens. Under fascism, the state controls companies to bolster its own power and wealth. Trump is clearly doing the latter.
As an example, the Nazis took effective control of a lot of industry in order to turn it towards the war effort, and supplying slave labour and appointing Nazis to key management positions.
Re: (Score:3)
This is straight up socialism.
I'd argue it's far more fascism, the state isn't giving control of the company to the people (that's Marxism, for the people to own the means of production). Fascism is where the state and it's leaders become the beneficiaries.
A simple cow analogy:
Socialism: you have two cows, the government takes both and gives you some milk.
Fascism: you have two cows, the government takes both and sells you some milk.
Re: (Score:2)
In truth I don't have much of problem with the government getting equity stakes in return for cash, but they should be strictly structured.
1) While the shares are in possession of the government they are non-voting shares. The government can't use them to bully anyone.
2) Speaking of non-voting, they also don't count for or against ANY votes. M
Re: (Score:2)
This is straight up socialism.
What the FUCK?
Read the definition of Socialism and nod your head that it COULD fit what we are seeing... and then read the definition of Fascism and realize that you were dead wrong.
China (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
NO, NO, NO!!! What China does is EVIL! Since this springs from the mind of the Stable Genius it's totally different! I don't know how it's different, but it's the bestest thing government has ever done! /sarc
(It's unspeakably sad that I have to add the /sarcasm tag, since there are so many people now who actually think this way. A decade ago it would have been unnecessary.)
Re:China (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump's policy seems to be very similar to what China has done over the past few decades.
China subsidizes its strategic companies with money and favorable regulations along with removing as much domestic and international competition as possible, all in exchange for the CCP's control over the company, including removing/arresting the head at any time. All Trump has done is to require ownership of a company in exchange for the previously free grants of money that previous administrations have given out. There is essentially no advantage to the company aside from the infusion of money. There are no board seats and no legal means to control or even influence the company once the money is handed over. The only difference from the previous grant-based approach is that the government gets money back when they sell the stock. So, this is a good thing for these companies, as the only thing they lose is some stock price dilution due to printing more shares, and that effect hasn't even manifested itself for companies like Intel.
For the quantum companies, we're talking tens of millions of dollars. I'm not sure that's enough to make a difference. The big problem with quantum computing is not money but the lack of technology, and a few tens of millions of dollars or even billions of dollars won't made the difference unless there exists a pathway to technological success, which is currently not clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Just to pick up on the point about arresting the heads of companies, how many times have people on Slashdot lamented that there is no corporate responsibility in the US? How many times have people said that the CEO should be arrested for some failure that injured thousands or millions of people, some scam that ripped off countless victims but was largely unpunished?
I'm not saying that the arrests in China were legitimate or not motivated by politics, it's just an observation.
Re: (Score:2)
The person holding the position of compliance officer for a Chinese company has the power to dissolve the company if it's in serious breach of laws or obligations and they can't see a way to remedy the situation. They can also face prosecution if it can be shown that they were aware of such a situation and did nothing about it.
Re: (Score:2)
How is that different from Western countries? They are expected to follow the law, the larger ones have lawyers on hand, and if they don't comply they can be shut down in the worst cases.
You can argue that it's different to have a government appointed compliance officer, but even that happens when companies royally screw up in Europe. The Netherlands recently appointed someone to run NXP, and the UK has been re-nationalizing failing rail franchise businesses.
Re: (Score:3)
The compliance officer isn't government-appointed. They're usually selected by the directors. In smaller companies, it's often an additional hat worn by one of the usual C-suite (e.g. the CEO or CFO may also be the compliance officer). I am compliance officer for a company incorporated in China, although I am not a Chinese resident. My point is that the compliance officer in a Chinese company has a lot more power than an equivalent position in a typical western company. There isn't one person with the
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, that's interesting. Sounds good, corporate responsibility.
Re: (Score:2)
The person holding the position of compliance officer for a Chinese company has the power to dissolve the company if it's in serious breach of laws or obligations and they can't see a way to remedy the situation. They can also face prosecution if it can be shown that they were aware of such a situation and did nothing about it.
The big concern is that the government can make the company leader "disappear" without any clear public charges, like what happened to Jack Ma, not to mention many others. Maybe the bigger concern is that the Chinese government can mete out these punishments without explicit charges or trials or even acknowledgement of the punishments. Jack Ma's "crime" was criticism of government policy that would be extremely tame by Western standards. Yet he was disappeared for three months, and his company received s
Re: China (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do think disappearing people is wrong, obviously, although I'm not sure that's exactly what happened to Ma. Keeping in mind the damage it would have done to him to be publicly arrested or rebuked, and the fact that later the Chinese premier convinced him to move back to China, and then he attended various events including one with Xi... Well, it's not quite how it was portrayed in the Western media. Not good, but we don't really know what happened.
There has to be a balance somewhere between that and the E
Re: (Score:3)
There are no board seats and no legal means to control or even influence the company once the money is handed over. The only difference from the previous grant-based approach is that the government gets money back when they sell the stock. So, this is a good thing for these companies,
You're a fool if you believe that. Look at the "golden share" he did with US Steel. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/2... [cnbc.com]
Re: (Score:1)
> no legal means to control or even influence the company
You write very eloquently, but are you really this stupid? Trump has exerted control and influence over plenty of companies which have absolutely no ownership or ties to the US government, other than being incorporated there. Just imagine what he'd do if he were a shareholder?
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that China usually has a plan, 5 years or longer, while Trump just seems to wing it. Someone tells him about quantum computers so he invests. It can be an advantage too with China's type of government, namely they can stably plan whereas in the west, there may well be a different government in 4 or so years. China has also learned to have engineers and such doing the planning while in the west, it is as likely to be lawyers or business people doing the planning and with a popularity contes
Nice business you have here... (Score:2, Funny)
... be a shame if something were to happen to it.
Totally a democratic move (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is democratic. People voted for this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Totally a democratic move (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it, though? Yes I do blame voters for the destruction of the United States, but outside of the MAGA true believers, I don't think voters intended for Trump to do whatever the hell he wants. They expected, naively, the constitution to still be upheld and decent people in the administration to put the brakes on the unamerican things Trump is wont to do. That's what happened last time. Of course most of the rest of us saw all this rubbish coming like train wreck. Obviously Trump voters did not, unfortunately. And many of them are in denial, and will be until they die, even as the nation crumbles around them.
And even Republicans very upset with Trump are in complete denial. I talked with a relative who's a life-long republican a few days ago. Although he occasionally votes Democrat as a protest, he would never join that party, even though I try to tell him from an outsider's point of view the two parties are more similar than different on various economic issues. He thinks that in another three years the election will replace Trump and someone else will get in and things will go back to normal. But they won't! The republic has been irreversibly damaged by Trump supporters, and with guys like Vance waiting in the wings, the devastation will just continue. I'm not fatalist, nor someone that wishes for everything to collapse, but my breath is taken away by the speed at which Trump has torn down the constitution and the institutions of US democracy, and altered the entire the entire federal government which used to honor tradition by maintaining separations from the president. The fact he's been able to do that so quickly, and without even a peep of protest from the GOP indicates that a significant number of people in DC were already rotten, but held back by patriotic fellow civil servants who upheld the constitution (I'm sure they were evil democrats). I know how this is going to end but I'm still sad about it, and a bit angry because it's going to bring down my own country in a similar way---already politicians here are modeling themselves after trump and beginning the process of dismantling democracy a little at a time, starting with making voting more difficult.
Re: (Score:3)
Project 2025, they lied about it for a year, Trump lied about it to the face of the American public multiple times and now they just admit they're doing it. Our media lapped it up too, both sides of the aisle.
Fox had the best position, they can carry the P2025 message with one hand ("They should do it") and also propagandize for Trump ("Trump has denied on multiple occasion, democrat media trying to slander the candidate")
Now for those of us with the "TDS" this was immediately transparent as a complete lie
Re: (Score:2)
The US empire was fading but it died with the election. It's just breathing it's last breaths as the world rearranges itself. Russia couldn't have done better if they had a spy elected. The advantageous position the USA held is gone permanently and the more it coasts on that power foolishly bullying the planet the faster it weakens while cementing resentments.
Internally, it's gone from cancer to terminal stage 4 cancer and is spreading into the bones. Like Rome, it will be dead for a couple generations with
Re: (Score:2)
Your Rome observation is so interesting. The fall of Rome is really only something that can be pointed to with the benefit of hindsight. For those living at the time, they may have been aware of the decline, but I doubt very many saw any one point in their present times as "this is the fall of rome." The United States will still exist in three years, but it will be irrevocably changed. The constitution will still exist, but it will have lost a great deal of meaning, at least where government is concerne
Re: (Score:2)
It is democratic. People voted for this.
A small minority of people did. Most people didn't.
The days when the republicans (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Remember the good old days when R meant capitalist and D meant socialist?
No. Bill Clinton is not /was not a socialist or anything like one. And Larry Summers makes Trump look like a socialist.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm 64 and I barely remember a time when Democrats weren't servants of Wall Street and Big Pharma. Socialists? Not in the lifetime of anyone I've ever met.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Trump is a spot on clear Fascist. If experts are not enough (some who left already) then just read any books before recent times and cope with the fact nobody time traveled to write biased books on Fascism to smear Trump in the future.
Generic socialism, is the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few. It's the rationale behind almost everything; The NAZI used it and their greatest enemy, the Communists also used it (and "Socialists" as a political group are different and are also not Communists. )
Re: (Score:2)
What? Someone on SlashDot who actually knows what words mean? Have we time-skipped back to 1999?
Better call my broker and tell them to dump those Enron shares . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Were the capitalists are long, long gone. Remember the good old days when R meant capitalist and D meant socialist?
No. I only remember when R meant klansman capitalist and D meant not-klansman capitalist.
Re: (Score:2)
That's rich considering the Klan was created by the racist Democratic Party to attack black Republicans.
Yeah, I was only first slightly politically aware of Reagan, although I guess you could count Clinton as the post-post script of the Southern Strategy.
Not a Capatalist. (Score:1)
How can anyone think this arrogant dictator that wants to have the government literally take over entire business categories is a capitalist.
He has literally enacted the definition of Mercantalism (balance of trade via Tariffs ) and wants to control every business.
Nationalizing the Banks (Score:2)
Run, run now as fast as you can (Score:2)
Fascism on the march. (Score:2)
Fake News (Score:1)
The King of Liars is gues what, being a liar again (Score:1)
Communist! (Score:2)
Who would have thought that Trump would lead a government takeover of industry and planning and control of the economy.
I guess that's all part of the fascist thing.
Misleading Headline (Score:2)
RTFA. It say some companies are "weighing whether allowing the government to become a shareholder would be worth it to snag funding," and makes light of the 10% stake the US Government took in Intel. But it does not say that the US Government has made any such offers, and offers no proof that Trump is considering it.
Not saying I think any of it is out of the realm of possibility. Not saying I like the idea (I don't really.) But the Headline is pure conjecture. Click-bait.
Re: (Score:3)
Bigger Sucker (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But but but... SOSHULIZM?!?!?! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see here... (Score:2)